The relationship between union with Christ and other aspects of salvation has been a matter of debate in recent years. After an overview of differing perspectives, this paper explores union with Christ in the structure of Reformed soteriology in the late 17th century through the writings of John Flavel (1627-1691).
Original Title
"John Flavel on the Priority of Union with Christ," William R. Edwards, WTJ 74 (2012)
The relationship between union with Christ and other aspects of salvation has been a matter of debate in recent years. After an overview of differing perspectives, this paper explores union with Christ in the structure of Reformed soteriology in the late 17th century through the writings of John Flavel (1627-1691).
The relationship between union with Christ and other aspects of salvation has been a matter of debate in recent years. After an overview of differing perspectives, this paper explores union with Christ in the structure of Reformed soteriology in the late 17th century through the writings of John Flavel (1627-1691).
JOHN FLAVEL ON THE PRIORITY OF UNION WITH CHRIST: FURTHER HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE STRUCTURE OF REFORMED SOTERIOLOGY Wiiii.x R. Erv.vrs I. Introduction A relatively small but signihcant debate continues within a segment of the Reformed community regarding priority within the structure of soteriology. Although there is a much longer history, the context for the current debate reaches back most immediately to various critiques of the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision. These movements emphasize union with Christ while objecting to the doctrine of justihcation as historically understood within Reformed theology. In particular, the role of imputation, whereby Christs righ- teousness is attributed to the believer, is openly questioned. The response from Reformed circles defending the traditional formulation of the doctrine of justihcation has, generally speaking, followed along two lines. One response continues to assert the central role of union with Christ as the overarching principle in the application of redemption while arguing that impu- tation is an essential aspect of this union when properly conceived. 1 The other response places greater emphasis on the priority of justihcation for the entire structure of salvation and uniquely distinguishes this forensic dimension in rela- tion to the other benehts of redemption. 2 These two responses in defense of the historic Reformed doctrine of justihca- tion, with their differing emphases, have brought to the fore deeper structural differences, which has become the occasion for this broader debate about theological priority within Reformed soteriology. It should be noted that both positions vigorously maintain that justihcation is Gods forensic, or legal, decla- ration of a believers righteous status dependent entirely on the imputed William R. (Rob) Edwards is the pastor of Mercy Presbyterian Church in Forest, Va. 1 See Richard B. Gafhn, Jr., By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation (Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster, 2006); Mark A. Garcia, Imputation and the Christology of Union with Christ, WTJ 68 (2006): 219-51; Philip G. Ryken, Justihcation and Union with Christ (paper presented at the meeting of The Gospel Coalition at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, May 23, 2007). 2 See the essays in R. Scott Clark, ed., Covenant, Justication, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary California (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2007); John V. Fesko, A More Perfect Union? Justihcation and Union with Christ, Modern Reformation 16, no. 3 (2007): 32-35, 38, online at http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly &var1=Print&var2=7 (accessed July 21, 2011). 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 33 12-03-28 10:32 AM WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 34 righteousness of Christ and received by faith alone. This is not at question. The debate is about the broader structure of salvation, specihcally the relationship between union with Christ and justihcation, along with the other benehts of re- demption, particularly sanctihcation. 3 These differences include divergent readings in the area of historical theol- ogy as well. Both positions appeal to the Reformed tradition, laying claim to Calvin and the trajectory of Reformed theology as it developed into the seven- teenth century. Individuals such as Richard B. Gafhn, Jr., Lane G. Tipton, Mark A. Garcia, and William B. Evans argue that union with Christ is the organizing feature in Calvins soteriology and the context within which all the benehts of redemption, including justihcation and sanctihcation, are comprehended and applied. Indeed, the various benehts are to be distinguished but are never sepa- rated and are bestowed together in union with Christ. Others, including Michael S. Horton, John V. Fesko, W. Robert Godfrey, and David VanDrunen, have argued that there is greater distinction within Calvin regarding the doctrine of justihca- tion and that it is given a certain priority among the other benehts and functions as a basis for the outworking for the whole of salvation, claiming that this distinc- tion is reuected in subsequent Reformed theology as well. This article will further explore these historical-theological questions through the writings of John Flavel (16271691), for whom union with Christ was a signih- cant theme. Flavel was inuuential in his own time, both through his preaching and in his published works, and his importance is evident through the following century on both sides of the Atlantic. 4 Flavel was writing a century after Calvin and a generation after the work of the Westminster Assembly. Although his pub- lished work is primarily in the form of sermons, and is pastoral rather than polemical, the changing theological environment of the late seventeenth century 3 For examples of these exchanges, see Mark A. Garcia, Review Article: No Reformed Theology of Justihcation?, Ordained Servant Online, http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=66 (accessed July 25, 2011); along with W. Robert Godfrey and David VanDrunen, Response to Mark Garcias Review of Covenant, Justication, and Pastoral Ministry, Ordained Servant Online, http://opc.org/os.html?article_ id=80 (accessed July 25, 2011). See also John V. Fesko, A Tale of Two Calvins: A Review Article, Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 98-104; together with Richard B. Gafhn, Jr., A Response to Feskos Review, Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 104-13. Also William B. Evans, Dj Vu All Over Again? The Contemporary Reformed Soteriological Controversy in Historical Perspective, WTJ 72 (2010): 135-51; along with the response from J. V. Fesko, Methodology, Myth, and Misperception: A Response to William B. Evans, WTJ 72 (2010): 391-402; and a reply by William B. Evans, Of Trajectories, Repristinations, and Meaningful Engagement of Texts: A Reply to J. V. Fesko, WTJ 72 (2010): 403-14. 4 Increase Mather, then president of Harvard, writes in his preface to Flavels Englands Duty Under the Present Gospel Liberty, that Flavels other books have made his name precious and famous in both Englands (Increase Mather, To the Reader in Englands Duty Under the Present Gospel Liberty, by John Flavel [vol. 4 of The Works of John Flavel; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1997], 16). Archibald Alexander, hrst professor of Princeton Seminary, said, To John Flavel I certainly owe more than to any uninspired author (James W. Alexander, The Life of Archibald Alexander [New York: Charles Scribner, 1854], 47). His inuuence has been noted on individuals such as George Whiteheld and Jonathan Edwards, who frequently quotes Flavel in The Religious Affections (see Iain Murray, John Flavel, The Banner of Truth, no. 60 [September 1968], online at www.banneroftruth.org/pages/ar- ticles/article_detail.php?1377 [accessed Nov. 16, 2011]). 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 34 12-03-28 10:32 AM 35 JOHN FLAVEL ON THE PRIORITY OF UNION WITH CHRIST is evident in his work, allowing us to see more clearly the function of union with Christ in his soteriological framework. Flavels proximity to Westminster, together with developments within his own theological and ecclesiological context, make his work a valuable vantage point from which to examine the differing conclu- sions about the role of union with Christ in the Reformed tradition. In what follows, I will hrst survey the historical-theological claims of each position in the current debate in order to appreciate better the value of Flavel for the discussion. Second, aspects of Flavels historical context will be explored along with what may be gathered concerning his own perspective regarding his standing within the Reformed tradition. Third, the function of union with Christ in the application of redemption will be examined in his works, focusing in par- ticular on the relationship between redemption accomplished and redemption applied, and the relationship between justihcation and sanctihcation. Finally, some concluding observations will be made concerning ways Flavels under- standing of mystical union contributes to the current historical-theological dispute, with the aim of showing that those emphasizing the priority of union with Christ hnd a precedent in John Flavel. II. Appeals to the Reformed Tradition As stated above, both parties are conhdent that Calvin and the general thrust of Reformed theology in the subsequent century supports their differing posi- tions. The one hnds union with Christ to be the central soteriological reality constituting the context for the application of every beneht of redemption. The other points to evidence that justihcation is the key feature historically in Reformed soteriology and seeks to demonstrate that it maintains priority in rela- tion to the other benehts of redemption. In this section, the arguments for each will be outlined together with support garnered from the primary sources, beginning with those arguing for the priority of union with Christ. 1. The Priority of Union with Christ in Reformed Soteriology Richard B. Gafhn, Jr., has written a number of articles that focus particularly on Calvin and the work of the Westminster Assembly. 5 Several other scholars, including William B. Evans, Mark A. Garcia, and Lane G. Tipton, have also made contributions arriving at similar conclusions regarding the role of union with Christ in the development of Reformed soteriology. 6 The opening paragraph in 5 See the following by Richard B. Gafhn, Jr.: Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards, WTJ 65 (2003): 165-79; Union With Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reuections, in Always Reforming (ed. A. T. B. McGowan; Leicester: InterVarsity, 2006), 271-88; Justihcation and Union with Christ, in A Theological Guide to Calvins Institutes (ed. David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback; Phillips- burg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008), 248-69; Calvins Soteriology: The Structure of the Application of Redemption in Book Three of the Institutes, Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 68-77. 6 William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation: Union with Christ in American Reformed Theology (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 7-38; Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 35 12-03-28 10:32 AM WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 36 Book 3 of Calvins Institutes is frequently quoted, that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value to us. 7 For Gafhn, and others who follow him, this is a signihcant statement at the start of Calvins comprehensive section on the application of redemption titled, The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of Christ. Gafhn claims, It is difhcult to exaggerate the importance of this sentence for Calvins applied soteriology as a whole. 8 It indicates from the start that apart from union with Christ there are no benehts received from Christ. Pointing to this same statement, Tipton claims, Union with Christ therefore organizes the core of Calvins soteriology and supplies the nuclear theological structure for the application of redemption. 9 Mark Garcia, in his detailed study, addresses what he calls various strata of union with Christ evident in the correspondence between Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli. 10 Calvin concurs with Vermiglis description of three unions: the hypostatic or incarnational union, the mystical union, and the spiritual union. These three strata are interrelated aspects of union with Christ, encom- passing redemption in its accomplishment, its application, as well as its outwork- ing in the Christian life. In the hypostatic union, Christ shares our nature and secures our redemption, but it remains unapplied apart from the other strata of union. The mystical union, standing between the hypostatic and spiritual unions, Garcia understands as the dehnitive engrafting into Christ by faith through the work of the Holy Spirit, 11 and it is this engrafting which forms the context of the communication of Christs benehts. 12 In other words, the mysti- cal union is the starting point for the application of redemption. Following this, the third stratum is a spiritual union described as the fruit and effect of the former mystical union within which, in Garcias reading of Vermigli, the bene- hts are communicated, including justihcation and sanctihcation. 13
Thus, union is central throughout the entire soteriological structure, begin- ning with Christs union with our nature in the accomplishment of redemption, followed by a mystical union wherein Christ and an individual are joined to- gether by the Spirit through faith, and consequently the sharing of the various benehts of redemption in what is described as a spiritual union. Garcia believes these various strata demonstrate the distinction made by Vermigli and Calvin between the accomplishment of redemption in the union of Christ with our humanity, as well as the necessity of its application in the union of the believer Grace in Calvins Soteriology (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2008); Lane G. Tipton, Union with Christ and Justihcation, in Justied in Christ: Gods Plan for Us in Justication (ed. K. Scott Oliphint; Ross- shire: Christian Focus, 2007), 23-49. 7 John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; LCC; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1:537 (3.1.1). 8 Gafhn, Calvins Soteriology, 70. 9 Tipton, Union with Christ and Justihcation, 39. 10 Garcia, Life in Christ, 185-90, 273-87. 11 Ibid., 282. 12 Ibid., 277. 13 Ibid. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 36 12-03-28 10:32 AM 37 JOHN FLAVEL ON THE PRIORITY OF UNION WITH CHRIST with Christ by the Spirit and through faith, which then is the context in which the believer receives everything from Christ for salvation. Important to note here is the emphasis on the person of Christ who is pos- sessed by faith, not his benehts directly. According to Calvin, it is when Christ is possessed by us in faith that in partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace understood in terms of justihcation and sanctihcation. 14 Therefore, Evans argues that for Calvin, Both justihcation and sanctihcation are subsumed under a more comprehensive realityunion with Christ. 15 This is further demonstrated where Calvin uses the language of mystical union specihcally in relation to justihcation, describing how Christ makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed, not in that we contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body. 16 Thus the relationship established between Christ and the believer in the mystical union is the basis for imputation, and consequently, imputation serves as the ground for justihcation. 17
However, while this mystical union is prior to and the basis for sharing in ev- ery beneht of redemption, Calvin carefully differentiates between justihcation and sanctihcation within this union. Regarding this double grace of justihca- tion and sanctihcation, Calvin says, Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably within himself. 18 These distinctions are de- scribed in his commentary on 1 Cor 1:30, a verse which Garcia identihes as Calvins biblical short-hand for his unio Christi-duplex gratia soteriology. 19 Here, regarding justihcation and sanctihcation, Calvin describes how these fruits of grace are connected together, as it were, by an indissoluble tie yet are con- joined in such a manner as to be, notwithstanding, distinguished from each other. 20 Calvin concludes with the comment, What, therefore, Paul here ex- pressly distinguishes, it is not allowable mistakingly to confound. 21 While justi- hcation and sanctihcation remain inseparable in that both are received in union with Christ, one must never be confused with the other as both are dis- tinct benehts, the one addressing the need for imputed righteousness due to the guilt of sin, the other the need for a new nature due to the corruption of sin. Thus Calvin preserves the distinction between the forensic and the transfor- mative, while maintaining that both are inseparable as aspects of union with Christ. In sum, Gafhn claims, This, at its core, is Calvins ordo salutis: union with Christ by Spirit-worked faith. 22 14 Calvin, Institutes, 1:725 (3.11.1); emphasis added. 15 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 39. 16 Calvin, Institutes, 1:737 (3.11.10); emphasis added. 17 See Gafhn, Justihcation and Union with Christ, 261-62. 18 Calvin, Institutes, 1:798 (3.16.1). 19 Garcia, Life in Christ, 219. 20 John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (trans. John Pringle; vol. 20 of Calvins Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 93-94. 21 Ibid., 94. 22 Gafhn, Justihcation and Union with Christ, 259. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 37 12-03-28 10:32 AM WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 38 It is further argued that this soteriological framework built upon union with Christ is not unique to Calvin but remains the emphasis in Reformed theology as it developed into the seventeenth century. It is not only what Calvin but subsequent Reformed theology has always taught. 23 In particular, Gafhn ar- gues the same fundamental structure is found in the Westminster Standards, especially as expressed in the catechisms. 24 This is evident most clearly in the Larger Catechism where Q&A 66 speaks of the union the elect have with Christ . . . whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ. 25 Following this, Q&A 69 outlines communion in grace in terms of justihcation, adoption, sanctihcation, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him. Important to note here is the relationship between communion and union. They are not to be conuated. Commu- nion is dehned in terms of the various benehts, including justihcation, adop- tion, and sanctihcation. Yet underlying this communion in grace is a union with Jesus Christ. Hence, sharing in these benehts is a manifestation of this prior union with his person. This distinction between union with Christ and communion in grace corre- sponds to the distinction Garcia hnds in Vermigli between the mystical union and spiritual union described above. Both refer to the relationship between the believer and Christ in terms of a mystical union. But what is described in Vermi- glis correspondence with Calvin as a spiritual union, understood as the partici- pation in the benehts of redemption, the Larger Catechism calls communion in grace. The point to note is how both describe a union with his person that comes prior to the application of the various benehts. Gafhn believes, Those multiple benehts are in view as functions or aspects of union, and concludes that in the Westminster Standards the heart of the application of salvation, un- derlying all further considerations of ordo salutis questions, is being united to Christ by Spirit-worked faith. 26 2. The Priority of Justication in Reformed Soteriology In contrast, those maintaining the priority of justihcation in the structure of Reformed soteriology raise serious questions regarding the above formulation of Calvins doctrine of union with Christ, believing it does not appropriately distinguish the uniqueness of justihcation in relation to the other benehts of redemption, and particularly sanctihcation. Fesko refers to a peculiar Gafhn- school of reading of Calvin with its overarching emphasis on union with Christ, 23 Gafhn, A Response to John Feskos Review, 111. 24 Gafhn, Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards, 174-75; Gafhn, Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reuections, 280-82; Gafhn, Calvins Soteriology, 71. 25 Also see Shorter Catechism Q&A 30, which describes the Spirit working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ, as the starting point for the application of redemption, after which the various benehts, including justihcation, adoption, and sanctihcation, are listed. 26 Gafhn, Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reuections, 82. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 38 12-03-28 10:32 AM 39 JOHN FLAVEL ON THE PRIORITY OF UNION WITH CHRIST which he describes as an idiosyncratic reading of Calvin. 27 Others have raised similar concerns. Godfrey and VanDrunen refer to this as a new interpretation of Calvin on union and believe it to be historically suspect. 28 R. Scott Clark observes that Calvins discussion of union with Christ as a locus proper is very brief and hnds this remarkable given the elaborate constructions given to his doctrine of union with Christ in some recent scholarship. 29 Though union with Christ is an important theme, it should not be made the singularly determina- tive element of Calvins soteriology. 30 Instead, Horton contends, Regardless of whether union temporally pre- ceded justihcation, Calvin is clear that the latter is the basis for the former. 31
According to Horton, therefore, justihcation holds the position of primacy in Reformed soteriology. He argues that even as the Reformers spoke of the mysti- cal union with Christ, they still regarded imputation as the judicial basis of the entire ordo salutis, refusing to collapse imputation into an essential union. 32 In fact, Horton sees parallels between Osiander, whose view of union with Christ Calvin vigorously opposes, and anyone who would make this incorporation the basis for justihcation rather than vice versa, because, he says, they always end up eliding the crucial distinction between Christ for us and Christ in us. 33 The concern is that prioritizing union with Christ inevitably leads to a distortion of justihcation through its intermingling with the other benehts of redemption when subsumed together under the category of union with Christ. What is in the forefront throughout the Reformation, it is argued, is justihcation by faith, which Calvin describes as the main hinge on which religion turns. 34
To support this claim, Horton references Calvins commentary on Eph 3:17 where he discusses the relationship between faith and the fellowship, or union, we have with Christ. 35 Here Calvin says, Most people consider fellowship with Christ, and believing in Christ, to be the same thing; but the fellowship which we 27 Fesko, A Tale of Two Calvins, 103; and Fesko, Method, Myth, and Misperception, 394. For a similar and even more critical assessment see Thomas L. Wenger, The New Perspective on Calvin: Responding to Recent Calvin Interpretations, JETS 50 (2007): 311-28. 28 Godfrey and VanDrunen, Response to Mark Garcias Review of Covenant, Justication, and Pastoral Ministry. Similarly, Wenger notes that in Calvin none of his disputationes deal primarily with union with Christ, nor is there a single chapter devoted to it in the entire Institutes (Wenger, New Perspective on Calvin, 327-28). 29 R. Scott Clark, Do This and Live, in Covenant, Justication, and Pastoral Ministry, 261 n. 103. See also Hortons lengthy footnote concerning Garcias reading of Calvin (Michael Horton, The Christian Faith [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011], 594 n. 11). 30 Fesko, A Tale of Two Calvins, 103. 31 Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Salvation: Union With Christ (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 143. 32 Ibid., 198. 33 Ibid., 147. For more on Calvins interaction with Osiander, while maintaining the priority of union with Christ, see Garcia, Life in Christ, 197-252. 34 Calvin, Institutes, 1:726 (3.11.1). 35 Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 143. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 39 12-03-28 10:32 AM WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 40 have with Christ is the consequence of faith. 36 Although Calvin is not specihcally discussing justihcation in this passage, his comment concerning faith is under- stood by Horton as a reference to justihcation as it is uniquely possessed by faith. Thus Horton points to what he believes is a distinction in Calvin between justih- cation and union with Christ, where faith and its consequence in justihcation is the foundation for the fellowship, or union, we have with Christ. Distinguishing justihcation in this way also has implications for its relationship to sanctihcation. Rather than envisioning justihcation and sanctihcation together as distinct yet inseparable aspects of union with Christ, justihcation is separated out as the ground for sanctihcation. It depends on the prior declaration of righteousness in justihcation as its starting point. Horton points to Calvins com- mentary on Rom 6:23 where, according to Calvin, clothed with the righteous- ness of the Son, a reference to imputation, we are reconciled to God, and we are by the power of the Spirit renewed unto holiness. 37 In this statement, Horton believes Calvin is conveying a dependent relationship, not only where imputation functions as the basis for justihcation, or reconciliation with God, but also oper- ates instrumentally in sanctihcation. 38 Horton hnds here a clear order that must be maintained, with imputation providing the judicial ground for reconciliation, as well as functioning dynamically in a way that empowers sanctihcation. Fesko also takes issue with Garcias reading of the correspondence between Vermigli and Calvin described above. While there is no question concerning the role of the hypostatic union, he challenges Garcias understanding of the mystical and spiritual unions. As noted above, Garcia believes the mystical union joins the believer to the person of Christ while the spiritual union conveys the benehts of redemption, including justihcation and sanctihcation. However, Fesko contends that the mystical union in Vermigli is the proper setting for justihcation while the spiritual union corresponds to sanctihcation. He follows Duncan Rankin who correlates the mystical and spiritual unions in Vermigli as well as in Calvin to justihcation and sanctihcation respectively. 39 Thus, in Feskos view, these distinct benehts are related to distinctions in union with Christ. In this reading of Vermigli, mystical union is a dehnitive event and therefore corresponds to the doctrine of justification while the spiritual union corresponds to the 36 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (trans. William Pringle; vol. 21 of Calvins Commentaries), 262. 37 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (trans. John Owen; vol. 19 of Calvins Commentaries), 243. Horton quotes from another translation of Calvins Romans com- mentary which reads, since we are clothed with the righteousness of the Son . . . we are reconciled to God and renewed by the power of the Spirit to holiness, communicating the sense of a causal relation between justihcation and renewal (John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans and Thessalonians [ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. Ross MacKenzie; vol. 8 of Calvins New Testament Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964], 138; quoted in Horton, Chris- tian Faith, 594 n. 11); emphasis added. 38 Horton, Christian Faith, 594 n. 11. 39 J. V. Fesko, Peter Martyr Vermigli on Union With Christ and Justihcation, RTR 70 (2011): 40. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 40 12-03-28 10:32 AM 41 JOHN FLAVEL ON THE PRIORITY OF UNION WITH CHRIST doctrine of sanctihcation. 40 The concern with Garcias reading, which places justihcation and sanctihcation together within the spiritual union, is that it leads to an undifferentiated relationship between these two benehts. 41 In this approach, union with Christ is only truly understood in relation to the various benehts. These benehts dehne union with Christ, and their distinctions are displayed in union with Christ. This is also seen in Feskos article on William Perkins. Rather than distinguishing between union with Christ and communion in grace with his benehts, Fesko believes that for Perkins, union with Christ is the ordo salutis. 42 The two are not distinguished. To talk about union with Christ is simply to talk about the ordo salutis and the various aspects of salvation within it. Indeed, they are described as synonymous and one and the same. 43
Similarities are found in Godfrey and VanDrunens discussion of the West- minster Standards. In contrast to Gafhns claims that union with Christ is the heart of the application of salvation in the Westminster Standards, they point out that no chapter in the Westminster Confession of Faith is given to union with Christ. 44 In reference to the Larger Catechisms treatment of union with Christ, so important for Gafhn, Godfrey and VanDrunen demur: If anything, WLC 69 warns us against starting with an abstract doctrine of union. . . . If we want to understand union, then, we must look to our justihcation, adoption, and sanctihcation. . . . These blessings show us what our union with Christ is. 45
Again, the various benehts dehne the union, and justihcation holds the posi- tion of priority in relation to them all. Godfrey and VanDrunen reference the Confessions statement that good works . . . are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith, taking faith here as a reference to justifying faith, and understanding good works within sanctihcation as an effect of faith, and hence of justihcation. 46
Fesko challenges those who maintain the priority of union with Christ to pro- vide better evidence demonstrating their claims, particularly regarding the rela- tionship of justihcation and sanctihcation within this union. If the reading of Calvin emphasizing union with Christ as the organizing feature in his soteriology is valid, it must also be clearly shown in subsequent formulations as the Reformed tradition continued to develop into the seventeenth century. 47 The remainder of this article will address this concern through the writings of John Flavel. 40 Ibid., 44. 41 Ibid., 42. 42 John V. Fesko, William Perkins on Union with Christ and Justihcation, Mid-America Journal of Theology 21 (2010): 30; emphasis added. 43 Ibid., 30 n. 38, 34. 44 Godfrey and VanDrunen, Response to Mark Garcias Review. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. See WCF 16:2. 47 Fekso, Methodology, Myth, and Misperception, 394. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 41 12-03-28 10:32 AM WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 42 III. John Flavels Doctrine of Union with Christ in Historical Context John Flavel pastored, preached, and published during the rapidly changing political, ecclesiological, and theological environment of the later seventeenth century. His own career was marked by these shifts, from an established Presbyte- rian minister during the Interregnum, to his ejection at the Restoration under the Act of Uniformity of 1662, later licensed as a Congregational minister after the Declaration of Indulgence in 1672, and hnally in the last years of his life and min- istry experiencing the greater liberty that came with the Glorious Revolution. 48
Although his status frequently changed, his convictions did not. Flavel continued to maintain the trajectory of the Reformation throughout his ministry. Two of his later works particularly demonstrate this. One is his Exposition of the Assemblys Shorter Catechism, written just prior to his death and published posthu- mously in 1692 in which he further expounds upon its teaching and draws out its practical implications. 49 This work was initially used with his congregation in Dartmouth in 1688 at his return there after the Indulgence of 1687. The second work, containing sermons delivered in 16881689, is Englands Duty Under the Present Gospel-Liberty. 50 Here Flavel addresses fellow ministers of the gospel in the new era of freedom, exhorting young and old to seek unity while also faithfully adhering to the doctrines of the Reformation. As will be further described below, both of these works include substantial statements concerning union with Christ in the application of redemption. Union with Christ has been described as the nerve of puritan piety. 51 That nerve was struck in 1674 when William Sherlock, who at the time was rector of St. Georges in London, wrote A Discourse Concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ, and Union and Communion with Him. Sherlock argues that the metaphors in Scripture describing union with Christ refer to nothing more than the relation- ship Christians have with the church. He writes, to abide in Christ is to make a publick and visible profession of Faith in Christ, to be the members of his visible Church and the Union of particular Christians to Christ consists in their Union to the Christian Church. 52 According to Sherlock, what is primary in union with Christ is not the personal and soteriological but the public and eccle- siological. Union with Christ does not describe the manner of personal 48 For biographical information on Flavel see James William Kelly, Flavell, John (bap. 1630, d. 1691), in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), online at http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/101009678/John-Flavell (accessed Feb. 14, 2007). Also see Anonymous, The Life of the Late Rev. Mr. John Flavel, Minister of Dartmouth (vol. 1 of The Works of John Flavel), xv. 49 John Flavel, An Exposition of the (Westminster) Assemblys Shorter Catechism (vol. 6 of The Works of John Flavel), 138-317. 50 John Flavel, Englands Duty Under the Present Gospel Liberty (vol. 4 of The Works of John Flavel), 3-306. 51 R. Tudor Jones, Union with Christ: The Existential Nerve of Puritan Piety, TynBul 41 (1990): 186. 52 William Sherlock, A Discourse Concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ, and our Union and Com- munion with Him (London: J. M., 1674), 148-49. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 42 12-03-28 10:32 AM 43 JOHN FLAVEL ON THE PRIORITY OF UNION WITH CHRIST application of redemption but the outward association of the individual with the visible church. Sherlock is quite clear in his rejection of a union with Christ in which a believer receives anything directly from Christs person. He describes Christs own perfec- tions but claims, These personal perfections cannot pass out of his person to become ours. 53 There is no room for either imputation or impartation. Union with Christ is political and consists in our belief in his Revelations, obedience to his Laws, and subjection to his Authority. 54 Sherlocks work reveals the shift- ing theological landscape and the development of Latitudinarianism in the Restoration church. 55 The struck nerve elicited an immediate response from individuals such as John Owen, Vincent Alsop, Henry Hickman, Samuel Rolle, Thomas Danson, and Robert Ferguson. 56 Another to respond was Edward Polhill, who of Sherlocks book said, When I read it, I thought my self in a new Theological World; Believers appearing without their Head for want of Mystical Union, stripd and naked for lack of imputed Righteousness; the full treasures of Grace in Christ . . . emptied out of his person, and transfused into the doctrine of the Gospel; as if according to Pelagius all Grace were in doctrine only. 57 Polhills sense of shock and his description of this environment as a new theological world are telling 53 Ibid., 212. 54 Ibid., 156. 55 For an account of Latitudinarianism see Gerald R. Cragg, From Puritanism to the Age of Reason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950); Isabel Rivers, Reason, Grace and Sentiment: A Study of the Language of Religion and Ethics in England, 16601780 (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 1:25-88; Dewey D. Wallace, Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology, 15251695 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982), 158-90. 56 For a summary of this controversy see Wallace, Puritans and Predestination, 170-73. The follow- ing works are in response to Sherlock: John Owen, A Vindication of Some Passages in A Discourse Con- cerning Communion with God (vol. 2 of The Works of John Owen; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1997), 275-364; Vincent Alsop, Anti-Sozzo, sive Sherlocismus Enervatus: in Vindication of Some Great Truths Op- posed, and Opposition to Some Great Errors Maintained by Mr. William Sherlock (London: Printed for Nathanael Ponder, 1675); Henry Hickman, Speculem Sherlockianum, or, A Looking-Glass in which the Admirers of Mr. Sherlock may behold the Man, as to his Accuracy, Judgement, Orthodoxy (London: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, 1674); Samuel Rolle, Justication Justied: or The Great doctrine of Justication, Stated according to the Holy Scriptures, and the Judgment of Protestant Divines. By which several Fundamental Truths, always owned by the Church of England, since the Reformation, are Explaind Conrmd, and Vindi- cated from the Errors of Mr. William Sherlock. Also a Discourse in Answer to him concerning Acquaintance with the Person of Christ (London: printed for the author, and are to be sold at B. Billing. at the Printing- Press in Corn-hill, 1674); Thomas Danson, A Friendly Debate between Satan and Sherlock Containing a discovery of the unsoundness of Mr. William Sherlocks Principles in a late book entituled A Discourse Concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ &c., by this only Medium, that they afford the Devil the same grounds for his hope of Salvation, that they do Mankind, and so subvert the Gospel, and transform Christianity into Mahumetanism (London?: S.N., 1676); Robert Ferguson, The Interest of Reason in Religion with the Import & Use of Scripture-Metaphors, and the Nature of the Union betwixt Christ & Believers; (with Reections on Several Late Writings, especially Mr. Sherlocks Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ, &c.) Modestly enquired into and stated (London: Printed for Dorman Newman, 1675). 57 Edward Polhill, An Answer to the Discourse of Mr. William Sherlock, Touching the Knowledge of Christ, and our Union and Communion with Him (London: Ben Foster, 1675), To the Reader, un- numbered page. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 43 12-03-28 10:32 AM WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 44 and point to the essential function of union with Christ in Reformed soteriology. It is worth noting in his list the various aspects of salvation lost apart from this mystical union: there is no participation in the covenant of grace as believers are separated from their head, there is no imputation of righteousness, nor any other beneht of grace, as all of these are found in his person. As evidenced in the overwhelming reaction against Sherlock among nonconforming ministers, this rejection of mystical union was believed to be destructive to the entire theological system and a radical change from the trajectory of the Reformation. Although John Flavel did not engage in the controversy with Sherlock, there are points where he directly addresses this new theological environment. This is particularly evident as he discusses union and communion with Christ. Flavel argues that this union is not just an empty notion or a mere mental union . . . but really exists extra mentem although the atheistical world censures all these things as fancies and idle imaginations. 58 In Englands Duty, as he discusses communion with Christ, he similarly claims, This atheistical age scoffs at, and ridicules it as enthusiasm and fanaticism . . . but the thing is real, sure, and sensible. 59 He argues that this union is a very great mystery, far above the un- derstanding of natural men. 60 Although Scripture provides metaphors for this union, Flavel says they neither individually nor jointly give a full account of it. 61
In regards to the mystical union believers have with Christ, There are no foot- steps of this thing in all the works of creation. 62 It should be no surprise that there are aspects of redemption that remain mysterious. In the end, Thus saith the Lord is the hrm foundation upon which our assent is built . . . though we cannot understand these things by reason of the darkness of our minds. 63 It is clear that Flavel agreed with the assessment of Polhill and others regarding the rejection of union with Christ and its implication for the structure of Reformed soteriology. Indeed, Flavel states, Destroy this union, and with it you destroy all our fruits, privileges and eternal hopes at one stroke. 64 The details of Flavels exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism further reveal how he envisions his relationship to the Reformed tradition. Prior to addressing matters related specihcally to the application of redemption, he demonstrates the centrality of union with Christ as he discusses Q&A 16 of the catechism regarding the covenant as it relates to the fall of Adam. One of the inferences he draws from the universal fall of humankind in the sin of Adam is the wisdom of God in sending Christ in our nature and the necessity of our union with Christ, in order to our participation of his righteousness and 58 John Flavel, The Method of Grace in the Gospel Redemption (vol. 2 of The Works of John Flavel), 35, 38. 59 Flavel, Englands Duty, 236. 60 Flavel, Method of Grace, 150. 61 Ibid., 34. 62 Ibid., 150. 63 Ibid., 107. 64 Ibid., 40. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 44 12-03-28 10:32 AM 45 JOHN FLAVEL ON THE PRIORITY OF UNION WITH CHRIST redemption. 65 Here are two themes Flavel returns to on a number of occasions, examined further below, namely the relationship between the hypostatic union and the mystical union. Following this, he gives the subtitle Of our Union with Christ to a series of questions and answers he provides to express more thor- oughly the meaning of Q&A 30 of the catechism concerning the Spirits applica- tion of redemption. 66 The Spirit accomplishes the application, according to the catechism, By working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effec- tual calling. Flavel puts forth twelve more questions and answers to further convey the sense of this application in union with Christ. In these, Flavel stresses that Christs redemption cannot proht us, except we are in him. 67 It is a union that is by the Spirit on Gods part and faith on our part. 68 According to Flavel, it is only this union that makes Christ and all that he hath purchased become ours, and becomes the foundation and root of all our spiritual and acceptable obedience. 69 In these answers Flavel is referring to both justihcation and sanctihcation, each as a property of this union, distinct yet inseparable in that each is had in union with Christ. 70 In fact, as he comes to Q&A 32 of the Shorter Catechism, which lists justihcation, adoption, and sancti- fication as the various benefits, Flavel refers to these as concomitants of vocation. 71 In other words, Flavel does not describe this list as an order of salva- tion but as concomitants, or as the several benehts that accompany the union with Christ effected in Gods call. The point to note is that in Flavels outline of the application of redemption described here, he is simply explicating his understanding of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. He sees himself as maintaining the trajectory of the Reformed tradition, and union with Christ is the central feature that provides the organiz- ing structure in its soteriology. One can also discern echoes of John Calvins opening paragraph of Book 3 of the Institutes in Flavels remark that this redemp- tion accomplished by Christ cannot proht us, except we are in him. 72 At this point, Flavel provides 1 Cor 1:30 as a prooftext, that God has made Christ our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctihcation and redemption. The importance of this verse for Flavel in his discussion of union with Christ is another similarity with Calvin. 73 It is the text for Flavels opening sermon in The Method of Grace, his most thorough treatment of union with Christ, and is found frequently in subsequent chapters. 74 The signihcance of this verse, according to Flavel, is 65 Flavel, Exposition of the Shorter Catechism, 171. 66 Ibid., 191. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid., 191-92. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid., 192. 71 Ibid., 194. 72 Ibid., 191. See Calvin, Institutes, 1:537 (3.1.1). 73 Garcia notes, When Calvin wishes to clarify the distinct-yet-inseparable character of the saving benehts . . . that come in union with Christ, he cites or refers to the language of this verse with striking regularity (Garcia, Life in Christ, 219). 74 Flavel, Method of Grace, 15, 36, 39, 40, 42, 85, 144, 146-47, 188, 216, 233. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 45 12-03-28 10:32 AM WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 46 that it provides both an enumeration of the chief privileges of believers, and an account of the method whereby they come to be invested with them. 75 That method is union with Christ. In referencing Calvins commentary, Flavel leaves no doubt as to the connection with Calvin at this point. 76 Flavel clearly believes there is deep continuity between his theological formulations, with his emphasis on union with Christ in the application of redemption, and those of the preced- ing generation at the Westminster Assembly, and stretching back further still into the previous century, as he worked to uphold the same soteriological frame- work in his own changing theological environment. IV. Union with Christ in the Works of Flavel In considering Flavels works more broadly, union with Christ is a theme found in his earliest to his last published sermons. 77 It is never far from his mind as he considers the work of Christ and its application. This is seen not only in the area of soteriology, but in his discussion of ecclesiology as well. In contrast to Sherlocks reduction of union with Christ to ones relation to the church, Flavel understands the ecclesiological imperative to unity as rooted in the indicative of the union believers have with Christ by the same Spirit and a common faith. 78
Flavel says, Union with Christ is fundamental to all union among the saints. 79 It is also union with Christ that provides the focal point for ministry. According to Flavel, The great aim and scope at all Christs ordinances and ofhcers, are to bring men into union with Christ, and so build them up to perfection in him. 80
Though present in many of his writings, his most thorough treatment of union with Christ as it relates to the structure of soteriology is found in The Method of Grace (1681). There are a few important observations to make about this work. The hrst is where it stands in relation to an earlier work by Flavel, The Fountain of Life Opened Up: Or A Display of Christ in His Essential and Mediatorial Glory (1673). These works are related to one another as redemption accomplished and redemption applied, as can be discerned from their titles. Flavel writes in his epistle to the reader introducing The Fountain of Life that it was my purpose at hrst to have comprised the second part, viz. The application of the redemption that is with Christ unto sinners, in one volume . . . but that making a just volume itself, must await another season 75 Ibid., 16. 76 Ibid. 77 See John Flavel, Husbandry Spiritualized: Or, the Heavenly Use of Earthly Things (vol. 5 of The Works of John Flavel), 141-49. This work was hrst published in 1668 and contains two chapters, together with two poems, on the agricultural metaphors for union with Christ. His later works where union with Christ hnd clear expression are An Exposition of the (Westminster) Assemblys Shorter Catechism and Englands Duty mentioned above, as well as Gospel Unity Recommended to the Churches of Christ (vol. 3 of The Works of John Flavel), 592-608; and A Coronation Sermon (vol. 6 of The Works of John Flavel), 545-63. Both were initially published in 1689. 78 Flavel, Gospel Unity Recommended, 592. 79 Ibid., 595. 80 Flavel, Method of Grace, 20. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 46 12-03-28 10:32 AM 47 JOHN FLAVEL ON THE PRIORITY OF UNION WITH CHRIST to see the light. 81 This volume concerning application is The Method of Grace published eight years later. Similarly, in its introductory epistle Flavel writes, It contains the method of grace in the application of the great redemption to the souls of men, as the former part [referring to The Fountain of Life] contains the method of grace in the impetration thereof by Jesus Christ. 82 The signihcance of this is that Flavels work on the application of redemption is not intended to stand alone. His earlier treatment of the accomplishment of redemption focusing on Christs person and work has theological priority. In other words, the true method of grace begins with Jesus himself, as seen in Flavels comments above. A second thing to note is the fuller title of this second work on the application of redemption. It is The Method of Grace, In bringing home the Eternal Redemption, Contrived by the Father, and accomplished by the Son through the effectual Application of the Spirit unto Gods Elect; being the Second Part of Gospel Redemption: Wherein The great mysterie of our Union and Communion with Christ is opened and applied. Lest there be any doubt, Flavel makes clear that this work on application has both the eternal plan and the redemptive-historical accomplishment in view, going so far as to call the application the Second Part of Gospel Redemption, secondary to its accomplishment as described in his previous work. Yet secondary does not mean any less signihcant. Flavel is clear that union with Christ by faith is as necessary, in the place of an applying cause, as the death of Christ is, in the place of a meritorious cause. 83 Another item to note in Flavels title is his use of the word method. As he describes the central features in the application of redemption, his concern is not to present an order of salvation, an ordo salutis, although he deals extensively with the various benehts of redemption such as justihcation, adoption, and sanc- tification throughout the work. His overarching concern is to explain the method of application, the method of grace, or the modus salutis summarized in the title as union and communion with Christ. 84 This is similar to Flavels dis- cussion of the Shorter Catechism, where union with Christ is the focal point and the various benehts are referred to as concomitants of vocation. Again, the central feature is union with Christ and the various benehts are the associated blessings. Numerous summary statements throughout The Method of Grace make this plain. Flavel says, The effectual application of Christ principally consists in 81 John Flavel, The Fountain of Life: A Display of Christ in His Essential and Mediatorial Glory (vol. 1 of The Works of John Flavel), 24; emphasis original. 82 Note the error in the Banner of Truth edition which has interpretation rather than impetra- tion (Flavel, Method of Grace, 12). The hrst edition has impetration (John Flavel, The Method of Grace In bringing Home the Eternal Redemption, Contrived by the Father, and accomplished by the Son, through the effectual Application of the Spirit unto Gods Elect; being the Second Part of Gospel Redemption: Wherein The great mysterie of our Union and Communion with Christ is opened and applied [London: M. White, 1681], b3; emphasis original). All other references to this work will be from the Banner of Truth edition unless noted otherwise. 83 Flavel, Method of Grace, 313-14. 84 Similarly, Gafhn argues that in Calvins title to Institutes, Book 3, The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of Christ, the concern is with the way (Latin: not ordo, but modus, mode, manner, method) (Gafhn, Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards, 170). 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 47 12-03-28 10:32 AM WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 48 our union with him. 85 Later he states, Union with Christ is, in order of nature, antecedent to the communication of his privileges. 86 Flavel stresses regularly that Christ and his benehts go inseparably and undividedly together and that none can receive his privileges, who will not receive his person. 87 Flavels method of application places the person of Christ constantly in the foreground. 1. The Hypostatic and Mystical Unions: Redemption Accomplished and Redemption Applied This emphasis on Christs person is also seen as Flavel discusses the hypostatic union and its relation to the mystical union. According to Flavel, The greatest honour that was ever put upon the human nature, was by its assumption into union with the Son of God, hypostatically; and the greatest honour that can be done to our persons, is by our union with Christ, mystically. 88 Flavel is careful to distinguish the two. The believer does not become one person with Christ as the two natures of Christ are united in one person. 89 Yet he is also clear about the essential relationship between them. Flavel describes the reciprocal nature of that communion which is between Christ and believers; we do not only partake of what is his, but he partakes of what is ours. 90 He states that participation in Christs benehts, depends upon the hypostatic union of our nature, and the mystical union of our persons with the Son of God; in the hrst he partakes with us, in the second we partake with him. 91 The hypostatic union is related to the mystical union as redemption accomplished is related to redemption applied. As the hypostatic union of Christs two natures in one person is the central feature in securing salvation, the believers union with Christs person is key to its appli- cation. There can be no saving union with the person of Christ without Christ being this person who is both God and man. 92 Yet, while there is a certain priority given to the hypostatic union, Flavel em- phasizes the more immediate redemptive signihcance of the mystical union. In fact, he believes the hypostatic union itself displays this intent in that his per- sonal union with our nature shows his desire after a mystical union with our persons. 93 Thus the hypostatic union cannot fulhll its purpose apart from the mystical union. In The Fountain of Life, he says of the hypostatic union that by this union with our nature alone, never any man was or can be saved. Yea, let me add, that this union with our natures is utterly in vain to you, and will do you no 85 Flavel, Method of Grace, 49. 86 Ibid., 112. 87 Ibid., 17. See also 67 and 103-4. 88 Flavel, Coronation Sermon, 557. 89 Flavel, Fountain of Life, 75. 90 Flavel, Method of Grace, 151. 91 Ibid., 145. 92 Ibid., 331-32. 93 Flavel, Englands Duty, 115. Elsewhere Flavel says, What was done upon the person of Christ . . . was also intended for a platform, or idea, of what is to be done by the Spirit actually upon our souls and bodies (Flavel, Method of Grace, 18). 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 48 12-03-28 10:32 AM 49 JOHN FLAVEL ON THE PRIORITY OF UNION WITH CHRIST good, except he have union with your person by faith also. 94 Similarly in The Method of Grace, Flavel writes, That honour which is done to our nature by the hypostatical union, is common to all, good and bad, even they that perish . . . but to be implanted into Christ by regeneration . . . is a peculiar privilege . . . and only communicated to Gods elect. 95 Through this emphasis on both the hy- postatic and mystical union, Flavel does not lose sight of either the historical accomplishment of redemption or the necessity of its personal application. He maintains a balance while also preserving a focus on the person of Christ. It is also important to note the role of the federal union in Flavels discussion. He envisions the federal union, when considered in the application of redemp- tion, to be an aspect of the mystical union. Rather than functioning as the primary category in which union is understood, the federal or covenantal dimension of union with Christ only becomes operative within the mystical union established between Christ and the believer. He says of the mystical union, Though it is beneath the hypostatic union, yet it is more than a mere federal union. 96 He continues, Christs coming into the soul, signihes more than his coming into covenant with it. 97 Thus the mystical union entails something greater than covenantal representation as it joins a person to Christ. He speaks similarly else- where regarding the federal union, that such a union indeed there is betwixt Christ and believers, but that is consequential to and wholly dependent upon this, referring to the mystical union. 98 For Flavel, limiting the concept of union to the federal or covenantal detracts from the fullness of what is received in the mystical union. It reduces salvation to representation and fails to capture the fullness of what he describes as communion with Christ. The federal, or repre- sentative, union is one beneht among others stemming from the mystical union. Flavel continues to stress the person of Christ as he discusses the role of the Spirit and faith in effecting this union. Flavel describes the mystical union as an intimate conjunction of believers to Christ, by the imparting of his Spirit to them, whereby they are enabled to believe and live in him. 99 Thus he refers to the Spirit and faith as the only two ligaments, or bands of union betwixt Christ and the soul. 100 As Flavel describes faith he repeatedly stresses its focus on the person of Christ rather than upon his benehts. It is Christ who saves and there- fore faith must apprehend him above all. No saving beneht is to be had by Christ without union with his person, no union with his person without faith. 101
Thus, he says, faith primarily confers their right to his person, and secondarily to his benehts. 102 According to Flavel, this is why union with Christ is, in order of 94 Flavel, Fountain of Life, 83. 95 Flavel, Method of Grace, 90. See also Flavel, Coronation Sermon, 557. 96 Flavel, Englands Duty, 212. 97 Ibid. 98 Flavel, Method of Grace, 38. 99 Ibid., 37. 100 Ibid., 39, 84, 116. See also Flavel, Fountain of Life, 192, 452, 512. 101 Flavel, Method of Grace, 67. 102 Ibid., 103; emphasis added. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 49 12-03-28 10:32 AM WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 50 nature, antecedent to the communication of his privileges. 103 Before all else, it is Christ that is received by faith. First, he says, it is the bond of union. And then, Secondly, it is the instrument of our justihcation. 104 Faith is not primarily understood in relation to justihcation, or any other beneht, but always hrst and foremost as that which unites one to Christ. Thus for Flavel, faith is never reduced to its function in relation to a particular beneht, but must be understood in relation to Christs person. And it is because of who he is as a person that faith conveys the right to the privileges he possesses, such as his righteousness for justihcation. The reason this is important for Flavel is that it makes his benehts indivisible in our reception. As Flavel says, Christ is offered to us in the gospel entirely and undividedly . . . and so the true believer receives him. 105 To focus exclusively on one beneht, such as justihcation, to the exclusion of others, is to separate in our acceptance, what is so united in Christ, for our salvation and happiness. 106 Faith properly understood as the bond of union, receives hrst his person, then his privileges. 107 2. The Relationship between Union with Christ, Justication, and Sanctication As faith unites the individual to Christ, it also brings one into communion with his privileges, including justihcation and sanctihcation. For Flavel, union and communion with Christ are distinct categories. The mystical union is the relationship between persons, the believer and Christ, by the Spirit and through faith. Communion with Christ then describes the participation in his benehts that follows this union. Union must be prior to communion: Take away union and there can be no communion. 108 Again, this distinction keeps the person of Christ in the foreground. Salvation is hrst and foremost found in him. Flavel describes the broader structure of salvation with the design and end being the communication of his benehts. In other words, the application of salvation is not complete apart from the various benehts bestowed. Yet he con- tinues, describing how this end is achieved: All communication of benehts necessarily imply communion, and all communion as necessarily presuppose union with his person. 109 The order is clear. The mystical union is prior and establishes a state of communion within which the various benehts of redemp- tion are communicated to the believer. The greatest of these benehts to which Flavel regularly returns are justihca- tion and sanctihcation. He describes these as two of the most rich and shining 103 Ibid., 112. 104 Ibid., 116. 105 Ibid., 110. 106 Ibid., 111. 107 Ibid., 112. 108 Ibid., 35-36. Similarly, Flavel states, Union with Christ is fundamental to all communion with him. All communion is founded on union; and where there is no union, there can be no com- munion (Flavel, Englands Duty, 239). 109 Flavel, Method of Grace, 33. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 50 12-03-28 10:32 AM 51 JOHN FLAVEL ON THE PRIORITY OF UNION WITH CHRIST robes in the wardrobe of salvation. 110 Where he discusses one, he soon describes the other. 111 This emphasis on justihcation and sanctihcation is for two reasons. First, it is because of what Flavel describes as the two bars betwixt you and all spiritual mercies, viz., the guilt of sin, and the hlth of sin. 112 The two foremost consequences of sin require this emphasis. But secondly, it is due to the manner in which some seek to divide justihcation from sanctihcation. To those Flavel replies, Surely it is the greatest affront . . . to separate in our acceptance, what is so united in Christ. 113 It is because of who Christ is that these two benehts can- not be divided from one another. Justihcation and sanctihcation are united in him, and in union with Christ both are received through the communion we have with him. According to Flavel, The hypocrite . . . is for dividing, but as these are undivided in Christ, so they are in the believers acceptance. 114 The structure of salvation, which begins with union and entails communion, will not permit the severing of justihcation and sanctihcation. Due to this order of salvation, with communion in his privileges following union with his person, Flavel stresses not only the inseparability of the benehts, but that they are also received immediately and simultaneously. He says, by our union with his person, we are immediately interested in all his riches. 115 As he lists the various benehts of redemption, including justihcation and sanctihcation, he says, they are all included in this general, the applying and putting on of Christ. 116 Again, similarly, they are all truly and really bestowed with Christ upon believers. 117 The structure of Flavels soteriology will not allow for their separa- tion in reception any more than Christ himself can be divided. At the moment one is united to Christ, all that is Christs is possessed in communion with him. This does not mean, however, that the benehts themselves become indistin- guishable. Although the manner of reception is the same, through union and communion with Christ, the benehts themselves remain distinct and must not be confused. Flavel is careful to make clear distinctions between justihcation and sanctihcation. In regards to justihcation, the believer has communion with Christ in his righteousness, but this righteousness is not inherent in us, as it is in him; but it is ours by imputation . . . and our union with him is the ground of the imputation of his righteousness to us. 118 Flavel believes this forensic dimension, which includes imputation, is an aspect of the relationship established in the 110 Flavel, Fountain of Life, 192. 111 Ibid.; see also Flavel, Method of Grace, 19, 24-27, 92-93, 118, 146-47, 149, 210. 112 Flavel, Method of Grace, 210. 113 Ibid., 111. 114 Ibid., 110. A similarity with Calvin may be noted in the language and imagery. Calvin says, Let then the faithful learn to embrace him, not only for justihcation, but also for sanctihcation, as he has been given to us for both of these purposes, lest they rend him asunder by their mutilated faith (Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 294. See also Calvin, Institutes, 1:725 [3:11:1]). 115 Flavel, Method of Grace, 41; emphasis added. 116 Ibid., 19; emphasis added. 117 Ibid., 24; emphasis added. 118 Ibid., 146. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 51 12-03-28 10:32 AM WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 52 mystical union as expressed in the analogy with marriage, where Christ and believers are considered as one person, in construction of law as are husband and wife. 119
Immediately Flavel turns to sanctihcation, which he describes as a communion with Christ in his holiness. 120 The difference is that in conveying sanctihcation, Flavel says, he takes a different method, for this is not imputed, but really imparted to us. 121 Both justihcation and sanctihcation are had only in union with Christ, but they are communicated differently and diversly, as their respective natures do require. 122 Justihcation by the imputation of Christs righteousness is in answer to the guilt of sin, whereas sanctihcation through the imparted renovat- ing work of the Spirit of Christ is in response to the hlth of sin. 123 Although both come in union with Christ, each is communicated in a way that addresses the particular dimension of sin it counters. Flavel makes a further distinction between justihcation and sanctihcation that corresponds to this difference between imputation and impartation. All believers are equally justihed, he says, but not equally sanctihed. 124 Through faith, believers are brought into a state of perfect and full justihcation. Yet it is not in our sanctihcation, as it is in our justihcation. Sanctihcation remains incomplete in this life. Although our justihcation is complete and perfect . . . the new creature labors under many defects. 125 This distinction, however, is related to the beneht: the one addressing our standing before God and the other the presence of sin in our lives. The overall method of grace through union with Christ remains the same, though the particular manner of applica- tion depends on the nature of the beneht and the aspect of sin it addresses. Flavel recognizes that although sanctihcation is imperfect, in contrast to justi- hcation, it has a dehnitive aspect that comes immediately upon union with Christ. He refers to both initial and progressive sanctihcation, along with justi- hcation, as examples of all spiritual good things that are found in Christ. 126
Flavel says, Jesus Christ frees all believers from the dominion as well as the guilt of sin. 127 Although these are distinct benehts with differences in application, Jesus accomplishes them all and each is possessed in union with him. It should also be noted that these distinctions between the benehts leads Fla- vel to describe differences in the way they are experienced as well. In particular, he singles out justihcation as the sweetest mercy. 128 He refers to it as a privilege 119 Ibid., 36 and 146. 120 Ibid., 146. 121 Ibid., 25; emphasis original. 122 Ibid., 24. 123 Ibid., 24-25, 36, 92-94. 124 Ibid., 91. 125 Ibid. 126 Flavel, Fountain of Life, 192. 127 Flavel, Method of Grace, 273; emphasis original. 128 Flavel, Englands Duty, 215. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 52 12-03-28 10:32 AM 53 JOHN FLAVEL ON THE PRIORITY OF UNION WITH CHRIST of hrst rank, even calling it the ground of all our other blessings and mercies. 129
Yet in context it is clear that Flavel is not implying that justihcation has a differ- ent setting than the other benehts in the structure of salvation. The difference is in the experience of it. He is not describing theological priority but the particular conhdence, hope, and joy found in justihcation. Flavel provides several reasons for calling it the richest of all mercies. 130 It is due to the method of pardon, through the blood of Christ, that we might have forgiveness for sin. Also, because of the subjects of this privilege whom he describes as the most base, despised, poor, and contemptible among men. Another reason is found in the latitude and extent of the act of grace in justihcation, as it follows innumerable sins. 131
Flavel freely magnifies the nature of justification, not because it functions uniquely in the order of salvation, but because of the way it addresses us as great sinners and provides full and immediate pardon. These experiences are aspects of what Flavel calls the act of communion in which we are participants in the grace found in Christ. The act of communion depends on the state of communion in which we are granted the right to all that is Christs through union with him. 132 Here is found the larger structure of Flavels soteriology. He summarizes the whole, saying, This communion or participation in Christs benehts, depends upon the hypostatical union of our nature, and the mystical union of our persons with the Son of God; in the hrst he partakes with us, in the second we partake with him. 133 Communion in every beneht of redemp- tion depends on union with his person for the application of redemption, as the union in his person with our nature is the ground for the accomplishment of redemption. Flavel demonstrates consistency throughout his works. Union with Christ is the bond between redemption accomplished and redemption applied, that which brings one into communion with his person and allows for participa- tion in his privileges. Application is necessary, the various aspects of salvation are essential, but the person of Christ remains central throughout. V. Observations Concerning Flavel and the Current Debate John Flavels extensive discussion of union with Christ provides needed per- spective in the current debate regarding priority in Reformed soteriology. His own reading of the Reformed tradition as it came to him in the late seventeenth century corresponds with those emphasizing the role of union with Christ as the nexus between redemption accomplished and redemption applied. The rela- tionship established with Christ in this mystical union is the central feature of soteriology. The benehts of redemption are each necessary, remain distinct and must not be confused, but are secondary to union with Christ in the application 129 Flavel, Method of Grace, 252 and 146. 130 Ibid., 254. 131 Ibid., 255. 132 Ibid., 144. 133 Ibid., 145; emphasis added. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 53 12-03-28 10:32 AM WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 54 of redemption. Faith is directed to Christ, the person who became one with our nature; and in this relationship established by the Spirit, all of his blessings become ours. Flavels emphasis on union with Christ is not unique. The way in which he frequently returns to this doctrine demonstrates that he is heir to a tradition that shares the same perspective. Other examples leading up to Flavel include Joseph Halls Christ Mysticall; Or, The Blessed Union of Christ and his Members (1647). Soon afterwards, John Brinsley, Presbyterian minister at Yarmouth, wrote Mystical Implantation: Or, the great Gospel Mystery of the Christians Union, and Communion with, and Conformity to Jesus Christ, Both in His Death and Resurrection (1652). Another is Thomas Lyes sermon titled The True Believers Union with Christ Jesus delivered in 1659 in which he states, Salvation for sinners cannot be obtaind without a purchase; this purchase is not signihcant without possession; this possession not to be procured without application; this application made only by union. 134 After the Restoration, treatises on union with Christ continued to appear, such as Rowland Stedmans The Mystical Union of Believers with Christ (1668), Edward Pearses The Best Match: Or the Souls Espousal to Christ, Opened and Improved (1673), John Loughers A Treatise of the Souls Union with Christ (1680), and Edward Polhills Christus in Corde: Or, The Mystical Union Between Christ and Believers Considered (1680). Some have recently suggested what seems to be too great of a divergence be- tween Calvin and the Puritans of the seventeenth century regarding union with Christ. For instance, Evans states that Calvins stress on the substantial union with the incarnate humanity of Christ increasingly drops out, and he believes that a devotional emphasis on communion with Christ eclipses the theological signihcance of union with Christ in Reformed soteriology. 135 However, in view of Flavel and others, such as those mentioned above, this appears to overstate the case. Indeed there is development, including implications for the devotional life, but the central soteriological function of union with Christ remains clear. Also, it should be noted that the category of communion with Christ itself was not hrst a matter of piety but descriptive of the manner in which the benehts of redemption came to be applied and then experienced by the believer, being the direct result of the mystical union with Christs person. One other predecessor to Flavel worth citing is William Ames. Both Horton and Fesko point to Ames and his inuuential work The Marrow of Theology as an example in support of their emphasis on the priority of justihcation. For instance, Horton quotes from Amess chapter on justihcation, with its broad description 134 Thomas Lye, The True Believers Union with Christ Jesus, in The Morning Exercise Methodized; or Certain chief heads and points of the Christian religion opened and improved in divers sermons, by several ministers of the City of London, in the monthly course of the morning exercise at Giles in the Fields. May 1659 (ed. T. Case; London: printed by E. M. for Ralph Smith, 1660), 377-78. 135 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 80-81. See also Jonathan Jong-Chun Won, Communion with Christ: An Exposition and Comparison of the Doctrine of Union and Communion with Christ in Calvin and the English Puritans (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1989), 351; quoted in Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 78. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 54 12-03-28 10:32 AM 55 JOHN FLAVEL ON THE PRIORITY OF UNION WITH CHRIST beginning with Gods eternal decree, then in the work of Christ, also as it is pronounced at the moment of faith, and lastly in our consciences through the testimony of the Spirit. 136 Horton sees in this sweeping vision of justihcation evi- dence that for Ames, justihcation is not simply one doctrine among others; it is the Word that creates a living union between Christ, the believer, and the communion of the saints. 137 Similarly, Fesko quotes Amess description of sanc- tihcation as the real change, wherein justihcation is manifested and its conse- quences, so to speak, brought into being. 138 Fesko believes Amess statement gives priority to justihcation over sanctihcation in that the former is described as the cause of the latter. Neither draws out, however, the broader structure of Amess soteriology that corresponds with what is found in Flavel. Prior to his description of the benehts, Ames discusses calling at the start of his section on the application of redemp- tion, saying, The parts of application are two, union with Christ and partaking of the benehts that uow from this union. 139 This brings to mind Flavels distinc- tion between union with the person and communion in his privileges. Ames calls this the hrst consideration in the application of redemption. 140 Not justih- cation, but union. Also, in his chapter on justihcation he is clear as he states that those who have faith in Christ are justihed by the union. 141 Ames describes justihcation as a relative change in that it concerns the believers standing relative to God in contrast to the real change that is sanctihcation. Yet as the relative change of justihcation is based in union with Christ, the real change of sanctihcation is no less one of the benehts that uows from this union, where what is declared in justihcation by virtue of union with Christ is made evident in sanctihcation. 142 Once again, the benehts are distinct, but both are similarly applied in the context of union with Christ. As one considers the various parts, this larger framework must not be overlooked. Finally, in view of Flavels doctrine of union with Christ, there is one overarch- ing concern to highlight regarding those who aim to distinguish the primacy of justihcation. In reading Flavel, the emphasis throughout is on the person of Christ. This is seen in the many statements from Flavel quoted above. It is also clear in the arrangement of The Method of Grace displayed in the totius operis that begins the work and presents a diagram of its structure. 143 The hrst eight chapters provide an overview of union and communion with Christ. Then Flavel begins the second section with seven chapters on the person of Christ with motivations 136 William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (trans. John Dykstra Eusden; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 161. 137 Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 138. 138 Ames, Marrow of Theology, 167; quoted in Fesko, Methodology, Myth, and Misperception, 400. 139 Ames, Marrow of Theology, 157. 140 Ibid. 141 Ibid., 162. 142 Ibid., 167-68. 143 This Totius Operis is found in the hrst edition of The Method of Grace (London: M. White, 1681), unnumbered page just prior to the hrst sermon. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 55 12-03-28 10:32 AM WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 56 to come to him. Only after focusing on drawing people to the person of Christ does Flavel detail the various benehts received from Christ by those who come to him in faith. In the current discussion, this focus on the person of Christ is in danger of being eclipsed by those who prioritize the beneht of justihcation in the ordo salutis rather than union with Christ himself. 144
This potential to obscure the person of Christ is evident in three ways in the present debate. First, at points the manner in which justihcation is emphasized potentially confuses the distinct line between redemption accomplished and redemption applied. For instance, as Fesko discusses Perkins he hnds that the mystical union is grounded upon the imputed obedience of Christ. 145 The foren- sic always has theological priority, Fesko argues, because Christs obedience has priority in the accomplishment of redemption. Thus justihcation, as forensic, must have ultimate priority in the structure of salvation even over the mystical union with the person of Christ. In Feskos reading, this means justihcation secures salvation. 146 However, this description of justihcation tends to push it out of the realm of redemption applied into the orbit of redemption accom- plished. 147 Of course, it is not justihcation that secures salvation but Jesus. No doubt Fesko would entirely agree. But in the attempt to prioritize justihcation in this manner, the danger is that it becomes elevated in a way that actually distracts from Christ and the fullness of what he has accomplished for salvation. In Flavels scheme, the weight of his discourse remains on the person of Christ as the one who justihes, sanctihes, and bestows all other benehts in communion with him. Secondly, this tendency for the person of Christ to be eclipsed in the prioriti- zation of justihcation is evident in the description of faith. As seen above, Flavel explains faith hrst as the bond of union which primarily confers a right to his person. 148 However, among those emphasizing the forensic aspect of salva- tion in the current debate, faith is expressed primarily, almost exclusively, as it relates to justihcation. For example, VanDrunen says that faith alone, dened as an extraspective trust in Christ and his atoning work, justifies and that 144 Gafhn expresses this concern in several places (Gafhn, Biblical Theology and the Westmin- ster Standards, 168; Gafhn, Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reuections, 280; Gafhn, Justihcation and Union with Christ, 252-53; Gafhn, Calvins Soteriology, 72). 145 Fesko, William Perkins on Union with Christ and Justihcation, 27. 146 Ibid., 32. 147 This confusion of categories where justihcation is potentially pushed into the realm of redemption accomplished is seen as Fesko correlates the relationship between justihcation and sanctihcation to the relationship between the legal-forensic work of Christ and the transforma- tive work of the Holy Spirit. This makes it appear that justihcation and sanctihcation are bifurcated at the point of the work of Christ in the accomplishment of redemption and the work of the Spirit in its application. In fact, he explains that justihcation is the ground of sanctihcation in the same way that apart from redemption accomplished, there can be no redemption applied (emphasis original). This is not to say that Fesko would argue that justihcation should be understood as an aspect of redemption accomplished, but his formulation tends in this direction. (See Fesko, A More Perfect Union?) 148 Flavel, Method of Grace, 116 and 103. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 56 12-03-28 10:32 AM 57 JOHN FLAVEL ON THE PRIORITY OF UNION WITH CHRIST obedience inevitably uows from justifying faith. 149 The point in question is not whether faith is the alone instrument in justihcation. The issue is whether this is the alone function of faith. The depiction of faith by those emphasizing the priority of justihcation appears to lead one to this conclusion. For instance, Horton claims, When considering the relation between faith (justihcation) and the renewing gifts (sanctihcation) . . . [the Reformers] treat the former as the basis for the latter. 150 Faith is reduced to its function in justihcation. Again, the danger is that Christ himself is no longer the central concern of faith, but the beneht received from him. However, this stands in contrast to the role of faith as understood by Flavel who clearly describes it as receiving hrst his person, then his privileges. 151 Thirdly, a last way this emphasis on justihcation tends to overshadow the person of Christ is in the manner union and communion with Christ are conuated. As described above in the Larger Catechism, communion in grace is dehned in terms of the benehts received from Christ, including justihcation, adoption, and sanctihcation, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him. This communion in the benehts presupposes a union with his person. This is similarly seen in Flavel who distinguishes the mystical union from the commu- nion in his privileges. However, this distinction is lost by those emphasizing the priority of justihcation. In fact, union with Christ is no longer understood pri- marily in terms of the relationship established with his person but becomes synonymous with the ordo salutis and the various benehts of redemption. 152
Hence, Godfrey and VanDrunen claim, If we want to understand union, then, we must look to our justihcation, adoption, and sanctihcation. 153 The danger is that the benehts become primary and the person of Christ to whom we are united by faith recedes into the background. VI. Conclusion While not diminishing the signihcance of the above concerns, those prioritiz- ing justihcation are rightly vigilant to maintain the distinctiveness of this beneht in relation to the others within the application of redemption. It is essential not to confuse justihcation with sanctihcation or faith with works. Both positions share the same dehnition of justihcation, that it is grounded on the imputed righteousness of Christ and received by faith alone. Yet it appears that in the attempt to maintain this important distinction, some of the nuances of the Re- formed tradition regarding the broader structure of soteriology have been 149 David VanDrunen, Where We Are: Justihcation under Fire in the Contemporary Scene, in Covenant, Justication, and Pastoral Ministry, 49; emphasis added. 150 Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 198. Also, as noted above, see Hortons interaction with Calvins commentary on Eph 3:17, where as Calvin discusses faith, Horton believes he is speaking of justihcation (Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 143). 151 Flavel, Method of Grace, 112. 152 John V. Fesko, William Perkins on Union with Christ and Justihcation, 30 n. 38, 34. 153 Godfrey and VanDrunen, Response to Mark Garcias Review. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 57 12-03-28 10:32 AM WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 58 misread, as demonstrated through the examination of Flavel and his emphasis on the mystical union. And this is not without considerable implication, particu- larly seen in the tendency to overshadow the person of Christ in the application of redemption when the beneht of justihcation is singularly distinguished as described in the current debate. Granting priority to union with Christ in historic Reformed soteriology does not, as has been argued, turn it into a central dogma inconsistent with the theol- ogy of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 154 The soteriological structure within which the mystical union functions is more complex. The whole cannot be reduced to the mystical union with Christ. As seen in Flavel, the hypostatic union has priority as redemption accomplished has priority over redemption applied. The mystical union follows, which preserves the focus on Christs per- son in the application of redemption. Then contingent on the mystical union comes communion with Christ in the various aspects of salvation. All three are essential interlocking aspects of Reformed soteriology as evidenced in Flavel. It might be said that this constitutes the true order of salvation on the larger scale: the hypostatic union of the eternal Son with our humanity, the mystical union between Christ and the believer established by the Spirit, and the communion in grace with all his benehts, justihcation, and sanctihcation together included. Reformed soteriology does not begin with justihcation, or any other beneht, but with Jesus and therefore requires union as well as communion with him. In both accomplishment and application, the privileges are secondary to his person. This appears to be no new reading of Calvin, or a school of thought beginning with Gafhn and associated with a few who follow him. Instead, those maintaining the priority of union with Christ are standing well within the Reformed tradition, evidenced not only in Calvin but stretching through the seventeenth century as clearly found in the writings of John Flavel. As Flavel was a consistent advocate of the Reformed tradition in the changing theological environment of the late seventeenth century, so are those currently who maintain union with Christ as the primary feature in the application of redemption, not to the exclusion of the various benehts of redemption with their essential distinctions, but that each might be rightly understood in relation to the person of Christ from whom we receive them all. 154 Fesko, William Perkins on Union with Christ and Justihcation, 22. 2012_SPRING_WTJ_ISSUE.indd 58 12-03-28 10:32 AM
Love Your Enemies (A History of the Tradition and Interpretation of Its Uses): Jesus' Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the Early Christian Paraenesis